Capitalism, autonomy and education

Why we work

JOE BIDEN's comments on the dignity of work at the Democratic National Convention last week (was it just last week?) inspired an interesting meditation on "What Work Is Really For?" from Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Mr Gutting explains that philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have taught that we work so that we can buy time for meaningful leisure. But Mr Gutting worries that capitalist, consumer cultures leaves their natives with fatuous desires and therefore ill-prepared to make good use of their free time. This thought leads Mr Gutting to propose that higher education function less to make us to better producers, and more to make us wiser consumers, thereby somewhat offsetting the insidious effects of capitalism on our desires and enhancing our autonomy by making us more reflective about our wants and about the contours of a good life generally.

Though I agree with Mr Gutting about the role of liberal education in widening our horizons and lending context to our choices, he stumbles along the way into several errors common in critiques of consumer culture. He writes:

[C]apitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better. If products sell because they improve the quality of our life, well and good, but it doesn't in the end matter why they sell. The system works at least as well if a product sells not because it is a genuine contribution to human well-being but because people are falsely persuaded that they should have it. Often, in fact, it’s easier to persuade people to buy something that’s inferior than it is to make something that’s superior. This is why stores are filled with products that cater to fads and insecurities but no real human need.

It's true, as Mr Gutting says, that the engine of capitalism runs on profits, not on well-being. And no doubt many of our desires do not spring from deep, autonomous reflection on the nature of the good life. But it is a basic mistake to suggest that participating in fads and seeking fortification against insecurity fulfils "no real human need". The humiliation and anxiety of a teen too poor to keep up with school fashion is not trivial, and neither is the ease and confidence that comes from fitting in. We do learn to better manage the disquiet of social comparison as we mature, but we are never free of it. Imitation is how culture is reproduced over generations. And status-conscious striving not only leads us to speak as others speak, to dress as others dress, and to consume what others consume, but also, when well-channeled by society's institutions and norms, drives the invention in the arts and sciences which lead to, among other things, capitalist consumer culture, as well the Notre Dame University philosophy department.

Now, if consumer desire was only randomly or incidentally related to "real human need", and businesses could pile up profits by persuading consumers "falsely" to want whatever crap they want consumers to want, we would have good reason to doubt that inhabitants of consumer cultures will ever make prudent use of their leisure. And so it is that Mr Gutting doubts it:

It would seem, then, that we should increase leisure—and make life more worthwhile—by producing only what makes for better lives. In turn, workers would have the satisfaction of producing things of real value. (For a recent informed and vigorous defense of this view, see Robert and Edward Skidelsky, How Much Is Enough?)

But this raises the essential question: who decides what is of real value? The capitalist system’s own answer is consumers, free to buy whatever they want in an open market. I call this capitalism’s own answer because it is the one that keeps the system operating autonomously, a law unto itself. It especially appeals to owners, managers and others with a vested interest in the system.

But the answer is disingenuous. From our infancy the market itself has worked to make us consumers, primed to buy whatever it is selling regardless of its relevance to human flourishing.

This strikes me as unjustifiably condescending to consumers. Isn't it even alittle plausible that consumers, and not just "owners and managers" will find "capitalism's own answer"—that consumers themselves decide what is of real value to them—especially appealing? I know Mr Gutting is a philosopher, but empiricism is really not so terrifying if you give it a chance.

The United Nations Human Development Index, which integrates measures of health, wealth, and education, is intended as a proxy measure of human flourishing. The top 20 countries in the index each practice some form capitalism, and each comprises a "consumer culture". Anglophone welfare capitalism and Northern European capitalist social democracy, which seem to do about equally well on the HDI, are good as it gets in terms of this standard measure of human well-being. And other measures, such as self-reported life satisfaction, give similar results. Thus we must reject Mr Gutting's implicit hypothesis that consumer choice under capitalism is uncorrelated with consumer well-being. Capitalist consumer cultures are where humans tend to flourish best.

Speaking of disingenuity, I fear that Mr Gutting here is guilty of a form of intellectual slackness all too typical of the humanities scholar: reasoning from canned ideology instead of evidence. Even as a specimen of a priori reasoning, Mr Gutting's argument seems lacking. Human preferences are always and everywhere socially primed. To point out that "the market" has primed us to want what it sells does nothing to establish that it gets us either nearer or further away from our genuine interests, from authentic human flourishing, than do the alternatives. How does patriarchial agrarian communitarianism fare in its ability to align desire with the objective conditions for flourishing? How does authoritarian socialism fare? How does Islamic theocracy fare? What is the superior alternative? Where are people in fact well-educated and relatively autonomous? It bears repeating that Nordic social democracy, like Anglophone welfare capitalism, is integrated with and supported by a form of capitalist consumer culture, and so cannot be an alternative to it. (I bought this desk at IKEA!)

Mr Gutting writes:

True freedom requires that we take part in the market as fully formed agents, with life goals determined not by advertising campaigns but by our own experience of and reflection on the various possibilities of human fulfillment. Such freedom in turn requires a liberating education, one centered not on indoctrination, social conditioning or technical training but on developing persons capable of informed and intelligent commitments to the values that guide their lives.

This conception of freedom strikes me as a bit too demanding. Again, there's nothing special about advertising campaigns. Our goals are shaped at least as much by our family and friends as by religious indoctrination or our conformist, status-seeking instincts. It would be foolish to deny that "true freedom" has nothing to do with weakening the influence of all these forces upon us, but neither must we be Diogenes, sleeping naked in ditches wholly indifferent to the opinions of men, to count as truly free. That said, Mr Gutting is spot on about the liberating effects of a liberal-arts education, and you need not be a philosophy professor worried about budget cuts to believe it.

However, I would add the observation that, as a matter of fact, the world's best universities sprouted in the world's most capitalist cultures, and that this is no coincidence. If Mr Gutting is right that the well-educated are, in one important sense, more "fully formed" as agents than the less-well-educated, then it would seem that these capitalist cultures, full as they are of excellent, accessible universities, should be most expected to produce people well-prepared to intelligently employ themselves at leisure. Now, if it happens that some people actually work more as their level of educational attainment rises, then maybe Aristotle et alia had it wrong. Work is not always instrumental to leisure. For some people some of the time, work is intrinsically satisfying, partly constitutive of well-being, and undertaken for its own sake.

This sounds like the guys article could be summarized thusly: the little people don't really know what is good for them. It is a tempting thought. I know that when I look at people I think I could make better decisions for them than they could. This is a common human vanity. Dangerous problems arise, however, when you try to act on that vanity. I think experience has shown that democracy and capitalism are just the least bad solutions to squaring all those different preferences.

While an interesting theory, it strikes me as a tad ironic that a philosophy professor finds fulfillment not in products sold by merchants but in services sold by, say, universities. Let us not forget that capitalism promotes consumption of goods and services. Whether through high-minded papers or liberally-educated HR directors mandating all humans check the "highest degree required" line in a posting, universities do a fine job marketing many liberal arts degrees that only leave the "human" with a nicely-subsidized piece of paper. Perhaps learning to count, build, or farm would be better...

I don't think a college professor knows how to be a better person than an auto-mechanic, and they should really stop acting like it. I suspect that you might find the answer in your family, or your faith, or in charity, rather than in an intro to philosophy course, but whatever...

@Whip,

I just want to say I 100% support your statement and the insight contained in it.

For that matter, there were bad Popes and good members in the oldest profession. Fancy resumes in whatever way they come in(acronyms after the name, # years lived, job titles held...) do not equate moral good or bad. A read of philosophy informs what and how some other folks have thought about the Q. It does not confer a higher moral authority on the fancy reader (for that matter, nor does any religion confer that authority), not even informational authority. I have talked to auto mechanics who have more life wisdom than the heads of philosophy depts.

In any case, Churchill was asked why he was in politics (a form of work). His take: I went into it because of ambition. I stayed because of anger.

I think most of us just work to pay the bills, and talk because we are bored.

It seems to me there is no question, quoting W.W., "For some people some of the time, work is intrinsically satisfying, partly constitutive of well-being, and undertaken for its own sake."

It further seems to me freedom in this context simply means the freedom to choose the work one undertakes for the intrinsic satisfaction it brings. Be that work spending 50 years to reach one's own acceptable standard in playing the Hammerclavier (Rudoph Serkin), or 30 years in a lab working on the discovery of a vaccine, or uncountalbe number of hours and buckets of sweat finding new skills to master movements on the skateboard, or a tireless obssession in figuring the most thorough and water efficient way to clean the toilet bowl. Each unto his own. This includes the definition of what is leisure, what is work, and what is satisfaction. Nevermind the critique of the critics.

I think you and Mr. Gutting is missing a critical distinction. "Capitalism" and "consumerism" are not the same thing. Mr. Gutting is critiquing what he calls "capitalism", whereas you correctly name it "consumerism". "Capitalism" refers to private ownership of the means of production and the private sector profit-motive. "Consumerism" is an economic philosophy which asserts that economic growth is driven by the consuming public and the choices it makes, as well as by the ever-increasing volume of consumption that is occurring.

There are many different flavors of capitalism, and consumerism is one variant of capitalism. I would point out that Ronald Reagan's "supply side" economics was the flip side of consumerism -- rather than provide liquidity to consumers and letting their increased consumption feed economic growth, "supply side economics" theory places the liquidity in the hands of the producers, and their ramped up growth and expansion of their workforces is supposed to "trickle down" to the consuming public (sort of like Henry Ford's idea of giving his factory workers pay raises, in part so that they could become consumers of his automobiles).

University degrees and deep philosophy are not necessary to improve lives by reducing the compulsion of consumerism. Just teach your children to live practically and a little thoughtfully. Teach them that whatever technology was new, amazing and expensive three years ago is still pretty nifty and much less expensive today. When my one and three year old children fight over a toy (in a room full of other toys), I ask them, "why do you want that toy now". The correct answer is usually "because she has it". It is my job to teach them to know when that that is the answer, and that it is usually a poor answer. If they can learn to think for themselves about what toy they want to play with when they are 5, they should have no trouble thinking for themselves about what car and house to buy when they are adults. You can get there through philosophy, but probably more quickly through practicality.

It wasn't a jibe. By every prospective criteria you just listed (substitute congressmen for ministers), the world's best universities are in the world's most capitalist cultures. I'd have to do some research to confirm on conservationists and artists, but I'd be amazed if the best by those criteria were not also in the U.S. Sure we can debate the most useful criteria, but it won't affect the result much. You might instead look at universities that students are willing to travel out of country to attend, and get the same result. It’s just not a statement open to much dispute. We could also debate the criteria for "most capitalist cultures", but probably would not find reasonable criteria that would result in a substantially different ranking of countries.

Biden, intentionally or not, used a term of art in Catholic theology: "Dignity of work." Gutting cites Genesis for the proposition that work is the punishment for sin. The Catholic Church, Gutting's church and employer, values work in itself. Another commenter posted a link to Laborem Exercens, in which Pope John Paul II says God worked for 6 days and made man from the beginning to work. The Church also peaches against materialism but that's separate from the dignity of work. You can work for free.

Materialism does worry me. Yes, expensive clothing provides value but there's something perverse about deriving value from clothing labels. Having said that, how the hell does education solve that? In my experience, there's a correlation between level of education and materialism. You think Obama wears suits from Sears?

To take this discussion in a completely different direction, the dignity of work is why I like work requirements for welfare. I suspect there's a good deal of value-adding government work that unemployed people can do for minimum wage. If nothing else, they can scrape gum off sidewalks or sort mail.

And a liberal education, hopefully, if the mind is open, exposes one to the choices (Hammerclavier, vaccine, skateboard, toilet bowl, etc., etc). In this sense, education is a friend of freedom. It is nice to have a friend.

Did medieval and early modern Europe really have a capitalism or a higher education system that would be recognisable today? Did 12th Century France or 4th Century BC Athens produce universities superior (including in terms of accessibility to the general population) superior to what capitalist societies currently have?

Capitalist societies today produce the best universities of today. And the best universities of today are the best universities that humanity has ever produced.

The free market is so important precisely because it allows us the freedom to decide for ourselves. This is Mr. Gutting's problem, he would rather people do what he wants rather than they do. This is, of course, because he believes that he knows better. What is valuable, or right, is a complicated question that everybody grapples with.

I don't think a college professor knows how to be a better person than an auto-mechanic, and they should really stop acting like it. I suspect that you might find the answer in your family, or your faith, or in charity, rather than in an intro to philosophy course, but whatever. To each his own.

Having read The Republic, I'm pretty sure whatever the question is, the answer is not The Republic. Thanks but no thanks to the offer of philosopher-kings, Mr. Gutting. A pee-ache-dee does not, I'm sorry to inform you, gentle your condition. It probably got you out of Nam though, so way to go you.

What Mr Gutting does get to do, however, is live his life the way he sees fit. The free market is the freedom to pursue the occupation of your choice, and to use what you've earned how you see fit. It gives all of us freedom over our own lives, which seems to be the flaw according to this toff.

For example, Mr. Gutting seems to have chosen to be a professional superior prick, who blows what he has on sloth, at least as I see it. But that's his right, I don't feel the need to fix him. It's called minding one's own business, and I think it's a virtue.

It's not just the a priori assumption, it's the a priori assumption in his own superiority. Perhaps he could learn a thing or two from the rest of us, who go to work, come home, and try to take care of our families, and still manage to put something in the collection plate.

The things we buy aren't just consumer products, most people are working themselves to pay for braces, or a safe car, or even a college education. That's where working stiffs pay outrageous fees so their kids can be lectured by the Mr. Guttings of the world that the people who sent them aren't enlightened like they are. Personally, I think a liberal education is one of the most expensive forms of conspicuous consumption you can spend your money on, but whatever.

As for what a college education should be for, if you want to promote your human flourishing, or become an Ubermensch, or egress some caves, that's a perfectly valid thing for you to spend your money on. It's not something that the government, and therefore I, should spend money on. I'll support education if it means there are more doctors, or if it means that people learn how to make bridges that don't fall down. As for your flourishing, you should go flourish yourself.

The emptiness of Gutting's argument is matched only by its lack of originality; academic philosophers have long lamented the extent to which no one else understands the world so deeply as they do (of course, if everyone did, it would render their chosen profession moot, but that is a point that frequently gets lost somehow).
Advertising from capitalists is no more the sole input to a citizen's view on life in a capitalist society than propaganda from the government is in an autocracy. Family, church, friends, government, marketers, coworkers, school and self are among the most powerful inputs available in a whole variety of places, and the prioritization and effectiveness of those inputs varies widely, both in terms of how the competing forces interact with each other and in terms of how the individual processes them independent of each other.
I argue that the single most important influence on an individual's ability to find fulfillment in life is introspection. Gutting does argue correctly that marketing does well at fulfilling the needs of the marketer independent of the needs of the consumer. Both Gutting and W.W. make a decent argument that higher education will provide more dimensions for a person to seek fulfillment and understand how consumption of a good fits into culture. However, the world is full of "educated fools", professional appreciators who hover around universities, symphony halls and coffee shop poetry readings treating what they're pretty sure are great works in the same way that the middling crowd treats sitcoms, the important thing being to have knowledge of what one's crowd is talking about. It is, however, okay to find that one just doesn't enjoy opera and, as such, to avoid it like the plague! Ultimately, responsibility for life fulfillment is not on the shoulders of an educator, marketer or clergyman so much as it is on the shoulders of each individual to figure out what the heck he or she thinks is fulfilling and to do that thing.
I have, over the course of my life, attempted to figure out an appropriate balance between enjoyment and sense of purpose. I really like pursuing endurance athletics, but struggle sometimes with the investment of time and energy toward an activity that is unlikely to directly serve anyone very well (I find that experience in pursuing commitments and general cardio fitness provide good contributions to more service-oriented areas of my life, but don't entirely justify the activity by themselves); as such, the calculation of balance is subject to my hopefully expanding wisdom about what the meaning of my life is. I believe that everyone should make these sorts of calculations, but that by no means everyone does. Regardless of that fact, the lack of introspection on the part of individuals is not a byproduct of governance, but of the individuals themselves.

I'm not saying that innovations before capitalism were not important. I'm just saying that, to achieve a useful comparison, you can't put a couple centuries of one system up against a thousand years of another.